Talk:Slicer Brothers
Pretty through knowledge of alchemy. 15:51, April 23, 2011 (UTC) Wha??? What was this point of this comment? What did you mean here? Tommy-Vercetti 17:07, April 23, 2011 (UTC) Minor nitpick: Ed's right arm was still able to move during his fight with Slicer. It is not until Envy arrives that his arm ultimately breaks. Sustaining a Soul "Due to the manga later establishing that a human body and soul must be alive for either to continue existing," When does this happen? Don't the Philosophers Stones kind of disprove this? I mean, Kimblee had his throat slashed & then was EATEN. I think that tends to kill you, but he didn't seem to have any problems.Neo Bahamut (talk) 00:22, September 20, 2012 (UTC) ...What does Kimblee's stone and armor bound souls have in common, whatsoever? First off, the notion is mentioned during the time when Al keeps getting pulled in towards Truth, in the Briggs arc. While it's never stated outright, the entire point of Barry the Chopper's death; both his body and soul die instantly together when his body rubs out his blood seal; is there to show that notion. Keep in mind too that every conversation about souls always alludes back this incident is pretty heavily implied to be the case. And secondly, Kimblee's later resurgence inside Pride's stone (which I assume is what you're alluding to) has little, if anything, in common with the binding process. You could even argue that because Pride ate BOTH Kimblee's body and soul or even that every Stone is literally just an ocean of lost (albeit still individual) souls, and because of Kimblee's bizarre love of such suffering, he was able to keep his own indentity far more closely. All I'm saying is, what happened to Kimblee (eaten alive, literally) and having both sides of someone pulled apart and then split into another object is nowhere remotely the same thing, at all. Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 14:18, September 20, 2012 (UTC) :So, in other words, it is not stated once, ever. That makes a lot more sense now. Barry's case is a spurious correlation. Barry makes note that his body was rotting, so it is possible that his body would have died of that anyway, and that the simultaneous death was more-or-less a coincidence. It is also '''possible that the passing of the soul kills the body, but '''not the other way around. Which is precisely where the Stones come in. The Stones are nothing but souls, sometimes of people who lived thousands of years ago. You'd have to jump through all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain how all of these peoples' '''bodies could still be considered "alive," in any sense of the word. I don't see how you consider these to be totally different processes. They are both cases of the soul being separated from the body, and the quoted claim does not discriminate between different types of soul extraction. I do distinctly recall Ed saying that the soul was "life energy," but I do not see why it would work in the reverse direction.Neo Bahamut (talk) 23:32, September 20, 2012 (UTC) :But you're forgetting, just because they both involve souls isn't really what you should be going on. In the soul binding process, the '''binding part is really what's key. It's putting a soul and body together that don't mix. That's why Barry's body rots with someone else's soul inside it. The same way that eventually Alphonse's armor will also reject his own soul. The whole spiel early about them being "truly immortal" was incorrect, as they hadn't come to realize yet that your soul will only exist (living, compred to what comprises a stone) as long as your body also lives. You might be more resilent, sure, but you're more fragile in the long run, as rejection will happen; it just might take awhile in some cases. That's really the jist of the soul binding. A collection of disembodied, ancient souls as a storehouse of energy isn't quite the same thing. See it now? Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 20:49, September 21, 2012 (UTC) :::No, I do not, because that still doesn't address the claim, which is that "a human body and soul must be alive for either to continue existing." First of all, this is very different from saying that this is only true of a soul bound to a suit of armor--it is phrased as a general truism of how souls work. Second of all, we know that rejection of the implanted soul occurs, but we don't know that it always occurs simultaneously between the armor and the original body. We don't know that the Slicer Brothers' bodies got the same treatment as Barry's, for instance. In fact, rejection seems to be occur on its own--though Barry's body is rotting, his soul shows no sign of being rejected by the armor, and when Al's soul starts being rejected, it does not appear as though his body is dying. Finally, the designation of bound souls as "alive" and philosophers stones as "not alive" seems arbitrary. Most of the characters do treat the stones as though they are still humans, and we see several instances in the final chapters where that seems to be confirmed by the souls acting on individual thoughts and motives. I don't see how else one could measure their "aliveness."Neo Bahamut (talk) 23:04, September 21, 2012 (UTC) :::"We saw no treatment that the Slicers' bodies got the same treatment as Barry's" :::You really shouldn't look at storytelling this way. "Just because it's never outrightly said, doesn't mean it's true" It's heavily implied. And, do you recall in both the anime and manga, the scene where both Lust and Envy sic Barry's body on him? He's in this huge pile of cages, and is just one of many. Why would Arakawa include more than one cage? Implying that Barry is just one of their test subjects, which, anyone else would then assume "The Slicers must be there as well" in a similar situation. Both are pawns of the Homunculi, slaves, actually, and in the same situation. And they apparently have more kind of twisted alchemic experiments in those slaves, which could be other bodyguards of other labs or just regular chimeras. :::So, regardless of your opinion on Stones, that alone (what I just wrote) is enough to warrant that trivia of both brothers' bodies being alive somewhere else. The talk about stones is entirely irrelevant. Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 17:00, September 22, 2012 (UTC) :::::I believe what TV is trying to get at is this: normally a human body and soul fit neatly together. Inside a Philosopher's Stone for example, the souls are encapsulated with numerous others. They retain no such information of their past selves (initially, though Hohenheim was able to accomplish such a feat) and are basically as Father describes them: "Energy". :::::Now, normally a soul can't exist unless protected by something. They can't just float around like ghosts in the FMA world, which is why in the case of soul binding, they need to be bound to something. And in THAT case, it's absolutely needed that both the body and soul remain living to sustain the other. :::::This is also why rejection occurs. They instinctively pull each other back, which is exactly why they can't survive without the other. :::::That's more or less the best I can describe it. Does that help? That's just my take on it though. 17:43, September 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::I am not a literalist, since that seems to be the impression you are getting. Implications make good evidence when they are necessary to explain the plot. With that in mind, let's try something else. Instead of telling me what isn't relevent, explain what is. What things prove for a fact that this rule is true? What cannot be reasonably explained any other way?Neo Bahamut (talk) 00:05, September 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::So now you're ignoring everyone who isn't me? ^I'm impressed, guy. The wikia contributor right above you explained it far better than I could have hoped. There you go. Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 23:12, September 23, 2012 (UTC) ::::Alright, so let me get this completely, 100%, absolutely clear: The claim is that "soul rejection--in a soul bound to a suit of armor--is caused by the human body and the soul attracting each other, & if the body dies, the soul will automatically go with it"? That's the core argument? There's nothing I'm "forgetting," or "misinterpreting," or any extra words I've "put in your mouthes"? I'm serious, I want to make sure we're on exactly the same page, going forward.Neo Bahamut (talk) 00:39, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::Okay, this is getting really old, really fast. It's been explained, perfectly, already. So either reread the manga or forget it. I'm sorry you can't understand the concepts in both the manga and what has already been explained here. Either way, I doubt this page us going to change to match whatever you're blathering on about. Someone takes things a little too literally, if you ask me. And if you want my advice on how to "move foward", get some medication for your obviously debilitating autism. Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 16:16, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::I've heard enough. Your argument is clearly bullshit with no substance. You have no positive evidence of your assertion, & when pressed for it, you choose instead to go on insulting tirades. But I think the worst part about this farce of a "discussion" is that you don't even appreciate the treatment you received. It's been clear to me from the beginning that you've been talking down to me like I'm some kind of idiot. At any moment, I could have released a hailstorm of insults, like you did just now. I could have told you to get your head out of your ass & asserted that, being a science major, I'm probably a lot better educated than you are. I didn't have to explain my every action, as I did when you insisted, I could have just called you a dumbass who needs to reread the manga, as you did every time I gave you an opportunity to clear away the "irrelevent arguments" you were complaining about. But no, you chose the oh-so-relevant rebuttal of calling me autistic. What, so now we're making fun of the retarded kids to prove how smart & edgy we are? What is this, 4th Grade? But even after you started blatantly flipping out on me, I kept treating you with respect, until it became apparent that you literally would not say anything that wasn't a personal attack towards me. I'll decide whether or not to push the issue about the page later, but there is clearly no point talking to you like you are any kind of functioning adult. You can go ahead & belittle me some more, if you feel the need, but I won't be responding to it.Neo Bahamut (talk) 19:17, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::Haha, yes go "tell on me". Who's the child now, huh? All I was doing was critisizing your "arguement"; which is being utterly generous to even call it that. ::::What kind of idiot are you, really? "Let's get on the same page, you" blahblah-fucking-blah. It's written right up there in plain english. I even reread the whole thing and it makes perfect sense to me. ::::Here's your argument "Mine is right, and since you can't PROVE ME WRONG WITH EXPLICIT TEXT FROM THE MANGA, then I can only be right" ::::You just scream autism from the nth degree, sorry. I call it as I see it. It's been debated, you've been proven wrong. Not my fault you apparently can't grasp such a basic concept. And, hey, yeah, I told you to go "reread the manga" because if explaining it as clearly as I possibly can STILL can't get it through your head, then maybe you should. If it's THAT important to you, apparently, go reread it. What other kind of answer do you want? You don't even know, do you? ::::So, go ahead and "tell on me" then, you idiot manchild. Tommy-Vercetti (talk) 19:30, September 24, 2012 (UTC) ::::